French Barracuda project’s utility to India

French Barracuda project’s utility to India
India can look to France for design and technologies to make low-enriched uranium cores for its nuclear submarinesYusuf Unjhawala
India might look to make its nuclear submarines future-proof by adopting LEU reactors. Photo: Reuters

On his recent visit to France, India’s chief of naval staff, Admiral Sunil Lanba, was given a detailed presentation by his French hosts on the Barracuda-class, its latest nuclear-powered attack submarine (SSN), the first of which is expected to be commissioned next year into the French navy. This assumes importance for a number of reasons. India plans to make six SSNs apart from nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs), the first of which—INS Arihant—is operational and the next in class, INS Aridhaman, has been launched recently. India is also looking to make conventional diesel-electric submarines (SSKs) under project P75I after the current programme to make six French Scorpène submarines, being constructed at Mazagon Docks.
This is where the potential of exploring the Barracuda lies. The French are developing two versions of the Barracuda—nuclear-powered for its navy and diesel electric for Australia, after winning a $50 billion contract for 12 boats named Shortfin Barracuda. As India is looking to make both conventional and nuclear attack submarines, the design commonality offered by the Barracuda will help keep construction, operational, maintenance and training costs low.

The Barracuda is designed with pump-jet propulsion instead of the conventional propeller, which will make the submarine quieter than propeller-driven ones. The pump-jet-propelled submarines are also faster and easily manoeuvrable. The conventional version of the Barracuda will have a vertical launch system to launch cruise missiles, a requirement for India’s P75I.

What is, however, more interesting is that India has asked France if it will be willing to help with the nuclear reactor technology. The French appear to be inclined. There is no law prohibiting cooperation on naval nuclear reactors (NNRs) which allowed India to lease the Russian Akula class nuclear attack submarine which is currently in operation with the Indian Navy.

If India is indeed seriously looking at the French NNR, it will mark a move from the highly enriched uranium (HEU) core that powers the Arihant-class SSBN to the low-enriched uranium (LEU) core that powers the French nuclear submarines. India uses 40% HEU while France uses 5-7% LEU for its Rubis-class SSN, Triomphant-class SSBN and aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle.

The reactor on INS Arihant produces about 83MW of power to propel the over 6,000-tonne submarine. However, a more powerful reactor will be required for future SSBNs, which will be substantially larger than the Arihant. The French K-15 reactor produces 150MW that propels the 12,000-tonne Triomphant-class submarine with 16 vertical launch tubes to launch the M51 submarine-launched ballistic missiles, similar to what India plans in boats succeeding the Arihant. The reactor on the Barracuda will be based on K-15, with suitable power adjustments.

Incidentally, India is also considering the use of nuclear propulsion for its future aircraft carriers. However, it is unlikely that the next one to be constructed will have nuclear propulsion considering the lack of an adequately powered nuclear reactor that is sufficiently miniaturized. France uses two K-15 reactors on its aircraft carrier.

India’s consideration of a shift to LEU reactors may be influenced by disarmament negotiations. The Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT) particularly aims to ban production of HEU, which is uranium with over 20% enrichment, to stop nuclear weapons proliferation. India is committed to negotiate the treaty which has been stalled for the moment by Pakistan’s veto. If the FMCT comes into effect, it will prohibit the production of HEU that is used in India’s NNR, affecting its strategic requirements.

While the treaty doesn’t appear to be coming into force anytime soon, India might be looking to make its nuclear submarines future-proof by adopting LEU reactors. The adoption of LEU will save India the cost of expanding its HEU production facilities and leave the current stockpile and production capacity for making nuclear weapons to ensure minimum credible deterrence till the FMCT comes into force. The US, which uses a HEU core, has been mulling a shift to LEU to further its non-proliferation goals although it has sufficient stockpile of HEU for its navy.

The use of LEU has its challenges, especially the larger size of the core. France has been successful in sufficiently miniaturizing the LEU core. While the 93% HEU cores of US and UK submarines don’t require refuelling, LEU cores need to be refuelled at least twice in their lifetime. France has developed a fuel mix that gives a reasonably long core life of 7-10 years before refuelling. In fact, INS Arihant will also need refuelling in a process that will require cutting open the submarine hull and welding it back after refuelling. The process will take two to three years, affecting the availability of a critical strategic asset. France, on the other hand, uses secure hatches above the reactor which allows refuelling to take place in a matter of weeks, leading to greater availability.

France is India’s strategic partner and is regarded as a reliable supplier of weapons. India can look to France to provide consultancy on both conventional and nuclear attack submarines derived from the Barracuda project and acquire design and technologies to make LEU cores for its nuclear submarines. A sufficiently well-powered LEU core can also propel India’s future aircraft carriers.

In fact, INS Arihant will also need refuelling in a process that will require cutting open the submarine hull and welding it back after refuelling. The process will take two to three years, affecting the availability of a critical strategic asset.

Click to expand...

Bleh...who rushed that idea through? BARC has more than enough experience with good refuelling procedures in confined environment, 1 more extra year of say design/validation so hull compromise is not required would have cut down on this 2 - 3 refuel time easy.

Also they better have ample welding verification done so that acoustic signature is not compromised afterwards.

French Barracuda project’s utility to India
India can look to France for design and technologies to make low-enriched uranium cores for its nuclear submarinesYusuf Unjhawala
India might look to make its nuclear submarines future-proof by adopting LEU reactors. Photo: Reuters

On his recent visit to France, India’s chief of naval staff, Admiral Sunil Lanba, was given a detailed presentation by his French hosts on the Barracuda-class, its latest nuclear-powered attack submarine (SSN), the first of which is expected to be commissioned next year into the French navy. This assumes importance for a number of reasons. India plans to make six SSNs apart from nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs), the first of which—INS Arihant—is operational and the next in class, INS Aridhaman, has been launched recently. India is also looking to make conventional diesel-electric submarines (SSKs) under project P75I after the current programme to make six French Scorpène submarines, being constructed at Mazagon Docks.
This is where the potential of exploring the Barracuda lies. The French are developing two versions of the Barracuda—nuclear-powered for its navy and diesel electric for Australia, after winning a $50 billion contract for 12 boats named Shortfin Barracuda. As India is looking to make both conventional and nuclear attack submarines, the design commonality offered by the Barracuda will help keep construction, operational, maintenance and training costs low.

The Barracuda is designed with pump-jet propulsion instead of the conventional propeller, which will make the submarine quieter than propeller-driven ones. The pump-jet-propelled submarines are also faster and easily manoeuvrable. The conventional version of the Barracuda will have a vertical launch system to launch cruise missiles, a requirement for India’s P75I.

What is, however, more interesting is that India has asked France if it will be willing to help with the nuclear reactor technology. The French appear to be inclined. There is no law prohibiting cooperation on naval nuclear reactors (NNRs) which allowed India to lease the Russian Akula class nuclear attack submarine which is currently in operation with the Indian Navy.

If India is indeed seriously looking at the French NNR, it will mark a move from the highly enriched uranium (HEU) core that powers the Arihant-class SSBN to the low-enriched uranium (LEU) core that powers the French nuclear submarines. India uses 40% HEU while France uses 5-7% LEU for its Rubis-class SSN, Triomphant-class SSBN and aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle.

The reactor on INS Arihant produces about 83MW of power to propel the over 6,000-tonne submarine. However, a more powerful reactor will be required for future SSBNs, which will be substantially larger than the Arihant. The French K-15 reactor produces 150MW that propels the 12,000-tonne Triomphant-class submarine with 16 vertical launch tubes to launch the M51 submarine-launched ballistic missiles, similar to what India plans in boats succeeding the Arihant. The reactor on the Barracuda will be based on K-15, with suitable power adjustments.

Incidentally, India is also considering the use of nuclear propulsion for its future aircraft carriers. However, it is unlikely that the next one to be constructed will have nuclear propulsion considering the lack of an adequately powered nuclear reactor that is sufficiently miniaturized. France uses two K-15 reactors on its aircraft carrier.

India’s consideration of a shift to LEU reactors may be influenced by disarmament negotiations. The Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT) particularly aims to ban production of HEU, which is uranium with over 20% enrichment, to stop nuclear weapons proliferation. India is committed to negotiate the treaty which has been stalled for the moment by Pakistan’s veto. If the FMCT comes into effect, it will prohibit the production of HEU that is used in India’s NNR, affecting its strategic requirements.

While the treaty doesn’t appear to be coming into force anytime soon, India might be looking to make its nuclear submarines future-proof by adopting LEU reactors. The adoption of LEU will save India the cost of expanding its HEU production facilities and leave the current stockpile and production capacity for making nuclear weapons to ensure minimum credible deterrence till the FMCT comes into force. The US, which uses a HEU core, has been mulling a shift to LEU to further its non-proliferation goals although it has sufficient stockpile of HEU for its navy.

The use of LEU has its challenges, especially the larger size of the core. France has been successful in sufficiently miniaturizing the LEU core. While the 93% HEU cores of US and UK submarines don’t require refuelling, LEU cores need to be refuelled at least twice in their lifetime. France has developed a fuel mix that gives a reasonably long core life of 7-10 years before refuelling. In fact, INS Arihant will also need refuelling in a process that will require cutting open the submarine hull and welding it back after refuelling. The process will take two to three years, affecting the availability of a critical strategic asset. France, on the other hand, uses secure hatches above the reactor which allows refuelling to take place in a matter of weeks, leading to greater availability.

France is India’s strategic partner and is regarded as a reliable supplier of weapons. India can look to France to provide consultancy on both conventional and nuclear attack submarines derived from the Barracuda project and acquire design and technologies to make LEU cores for its nuclear submarines. A sufficiently well-powered LEU core can also propel India’s future aircraft carriers.

It was talked about long before anyone knew about what the final contours of the relationship will be. I had at that time accidantly written about it only to rephrase it. We might see a complete change in procurements for IN in coming months. IAC-2 will get french Nuke reactors and DCNS arrester system. w may not even go for AAG or EMALs for it. The subs are most certainly going to be based on Barracuda.

It was talked about long before anyone knew about what the final contours of the relationship will be. I had at that time accidantly written about it only to rephrase it. We might see a complete change in procurements for IN in coming months. IAC-2 will get french Nuke reactors and DCNS arrester system. w may not even go for AAG or EMALs for it. The subs are most certainly going to be based on Barracuda.

Click to expand...

There's a blog by a person called Prasun K Sengupta who's been crying out hoarse that our next lot of SSN has already been finalised based of Russian designs of a submarine based on the former SU's Delphin class of SSN , payment of which has already been routed through the Kudankulam N reactor deal . He's dedicated full pages to this bit of news ( I'm sure a good many of the members here are already familiar with him and his writings . All one has to do is dig into his blogs archives )

He's gone on record to ridicule French involvement in our N reactor plans for the SSN / SSBN / IAC .

Now we have this . I don't doubt @PARIKRAMA 's sources but PKS has been eeriely accurate at times in the past .

There's a blog by a person called Prasun K Sengupta who's been crying out hoarse that our next lot of SSN has already been finalised based of Russian designs of a submarine based on the former SU's Delphin class of SSN , payment if which has already been routed through the Kudankulam N reactor deal . He's dedicated full pages to this bit of news ( I'm sure a good many of the members here are already familiar with him and his writings . All one has to do is figure in his blogs archives )

He's gone in record to ridicule French involvement in our N reactor plans for the SSN / SSBN / IAC .

Now we have this . I don't doubt @PARIKRAMA 's sources but PKS has been eeriely accurate at times in the past .

Whom do we believe ?

Click to expand...

do you know IN has four separate programs for submarines? One for DE subs, second for Arhant and its successor class SSBNs and a third for SSNs. Now go wild thinking who is supposed to be partner for what?

do you know IN has four separate programs for submarines? One for DE subs, second for Arhant and its successor class SSBNs and a third for SSNs. Now go wild thinking who is supposed to be partner for what?

I would certainly like P75I be scrapped order 3 more scorpene we have in options and straight away go for Barracuda SSNs if french are selling those.
So we have 2 SSNs production parallel one bsed on Russian design (most likely L&T) and other based on French (most likely RNAVAL). And 1 french SSK line.
One of those line could share orders for SSN & SSBNs.

Yet in spite of all these projects we lack the ability to design a submarine or a N reactor in house as of now . Correct me if I'm wrong .

Click to expand...

we can opt to re-invent the wheel and lose 10-15 yrs in that or get the tech itself for the money which we will in any case spend to acquire weapons which will accelerate the whole indigenous effort. What do you suggest we shud do? re-invent the wheel and lose time or get the tech for wheel and save time?

we can opt to re-invent the wheel and lose 10-15 yrs in that or get the tech itself for the money which we will in any case spend to acquire weapons which will accelerate the whole indigenous effort. What do you suggest we shud do? re-invent the wheel and lose time or get the tech for wheel and save time?

Click to expand...

.If the tech purchased puts us on par or at worst a generation behind established powers in terms of submarine ( DE or N) / N reactor design then I'm all for it . But how does it enhance our own R&D w.r.t scaling up to the next level ?

That's more important in the final reckoning or we'd keep purchasing such technologies all through .

.If the tech purchased puts us on par or at worst a generation behind established powers in terms of submarine ( DE or N) / N reactor design then I'm all for it . But how does it enhance our own R&D w.r.t scaling up to the next level ?

That's more important in the final reckoning or we'd keep purchasing such technologies all through .

Click to expand...

I talked of tech transfer including outright purchase and not just outright purchase only.

I talked of tech transfer including outright purchase and not just outright purchase only.

Click to expand...

So , we are to understand that the French who have sold the Barracuda submarines minus the N reactor or its tech and design to the Brazilian navy and are assisting as consultants their N reactor design for their N Sub programme will sell us the tech and design of a similar N reactor and the designs along with other tech of the Barracuda submarine. Have I got this right ?

So , we are to understand that the French who have sold the Barracuda submarines minus the N reactor or its tech and design to the Brazilian navy and are assisting as consultants their N reactor design for their N Sub programme will sell us the tech and design of a similar N reactor and the designs along with other tech of the Barracuda submarine. Have I got this right ?